eIn the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
IMI Complaint Reference Number:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with Garante per la protezione dei dati
personali (Italy DPA) pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning
Yahoo EMEA Limited
Record of Amicable Resolution of the complaint and its consequent withdrawal pursuant to
Section 109(3) of the Data Protection Act, 2018
Further to the requirements of EDPB Guidelines 06/2022 on the practical implementation of
amicable settlements Version 2.0 (adopted on 12 May 2022)
RECORD OF AMICABLE RESOLUTION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF EDPB GUIDELINES 06/2022 ON THE
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF AMICABLE
SETTLEMENTS VERSION 2.0, ADOPTED 12 MAY 2022
Dated the 27th day of December 2023
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 16 July 2020, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article
77 GDPR with Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy DPA) (“the Recipient SA”)
concerning Yahoo EMEA Limited (“the Respondent”).
2. In circumstances where the Data Protection Commission (“the DPC”) was deemed to be the
competent authority for the purpose of Article 56(1) GDPR, the Recipient SA transferred the
complaint to the DPC on 28 December 2022.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject contacted the Respondent on 5 May 2020 requesting the delisting
of over 100 URLs related to events surrounding an imposed prison sentence of 30
years, which was handed down in 1993 and had since been served.
b. The Respondent refused the delisting request, noting the fact that their sentence was
completed was but one factor, but not the sole determining factor for its adjudication
of their delisting request. The Respondent explained that it had not been provided
with evidence to show that the content of the URLs was inaccurate, irrelevant,
inappropriate or excessive, nor had it received any evidence that the pertinent
offence and conviction had been removed from public records. As such, the
Respondent considered the content of the complained-of URLs to be of public
interest.
c. The Data Subject was not happy with the response received from the Respondent and
lodged a complaint with the Recipient SA.
Action taken by the DPC
4. The DPC, pursuant to Section 109(4) of the Data Protection Act, 2018 (“the 2018 Act”), is
required, as a preliminary matter, to assess the likelihood of the parties to the complaint
reaching, within a reasonable time, an amicable resolution of the subject-matter of the
complaint. Where the DPC considers that there is a reasonable likelihood of such an amicable
resolution being concluded between the parties, it is empowered, by Section 109(2) of the
2018 Act, to take such steps as it considers appropriate to arrange or facilitate such an
amicable resolution.
5. Following a preliminary examination of the material referred to it by the Recipient SA, the DPC
considered that there was a reasonable likelihood of the parties concerned reaching, within a
reasonable time, an amicable resolution of the subject matter of the complaint. The DPC’s
experience is that complaints of this nature are particularly suitable for amicable resolution in
circumstances where there is an obvious solution to the dispute, if the respondent is willing
to engage in the process. In this regard, the DPC had regard to:
2
a. The relationship between the Data Subject and Respondent (being, in this case, an
individual consumer and a service provider); and
b. The nature of the complaint (in this case, an unsuccessful attempt by the Data Subject
to exercise their data subject rights).
6. While not relevant to the assessment that the DPC is required to carry out pursuant to Section
109(4) of the 2018 Act, the DPC also had regard to EDPB Guidelines 06/2022 on the practical
implementation of amicable settlements Version 2.0, adopted on 12 May 2022 (“Document
06/2022”), and considered that:
a. the possible conclusion of the complaint by way of amicable resolution would not
hamper the ability of the supervisory authorities to maintain the high level of
protection that the GDPR seeks to create; and that
b. such a conclusion, in this case, would likely carry advantages for the Data Subject,
whose rights under the GDPR would be vindicated swiftly, as well as for the controller,
who would be provided the opportunity to bring its behaviour into compliance with
the GDPR.
Amicable Resolution
7. The DPC engaged with both the Data Subject (via the Recipient SA) and Respondent in relation
to the subject matter of the complaint. On foot of this engagement, and noting the points
raised in Yahoo’s initial assessment of the delisting request, the Data Subject (via the Recipient
SA) limited the scope of the complaint to twelve specific URLS that continued to return against
a search of their name. On 3 August 2023, the DPC wrote to the Respondent formally
commencing its investigation and requesting that it address the concerns raised.
8. In response to the DPC’s investigation, the Respondent confirmed to the DPC that, following
its adjudication of the information provided, nine of the twelve URLs referred to above had
been dereferenced. The Respondent further confirmed that the remaining three URLs did not
return against a search of the Data Subject’s name. As such and in summary, the DPC noted
that all of the twelve URLs submitted had been addressed by the Respondent.
9. In light of the fact that all twelve URLs had now either been delisted or were confirmed to not
return against a search of the Data Subject’s name, the DPC considered it appropriate to
conclude the complaint by way of amicable resolution. On 4 October 2023, the DPC wrote to
the Data Subject outlining the Respondent’s response to its investigation. In the
circumstances, the DPC asked the Data Subject to notify it, within a specified timeframe, if
they were not satisfied with the outcome, so that the DPC could take further action. The DPC
did not receive any further communication from the Data Subject and, accordingly, the
complaint has been deemed to have been amicably resolved.
10. On 20 November 2023, and in light of the foregoing, the DPC wrote to the Recipient SA noting
that the DPC considered the complaint to have been amicably resolved and withdrawn in
3
accordance with section 109(3) of the Act and that it would conclude the case and inform the
Respondent.
11. In circumstances where the subject matter of the complaint has been amicably resolved, in
full, the complaint, by virtue of Section 109(3) of the 2018 Act, is deemed to have been
withdrawn by the Data Subject.
Confirmation of Outcome
12. For the purpose of Document 06/2022, the DPC confirms that:
a. The complaint, in its entirety, has been amicably resolved between the parties
concerned;
b. The agreed resolution is such that the object of the complaint no longer exists; and
c. Having consulted with the supervisory authorities concerned on the information set
out above, as required by Document 06/2022 the DPC has now closed off its file in
this matter.
13. If dissatisfied with the outcome recorded herein, the parties have the right to an effective
remedy by way of an application for judicial review, by the Irish High Court, of the process
applied by the DPC in the context of the within complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the DPC:
_____________________________
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
4